In Re-Marriage
All information within the sections below was gathered from the WestLaw Next website, In re Marriage, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), and the statutes and regulations within the case. Cases, statutes and regulation mentioned within this section that is in green may be clicked on to take you to the full citation. Background According to the case of In re Marriage challengers of same-sex marriage filed writ petitions (1) looking for the city mayor to prohibit issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples after Prop 8 was denied. Attorney General also filed original writ petition to take the issue before Supreme Court, 33 Cal.4th 1055, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 95 P.3d 459. The Supreme Court suspended opponents' actions and issued a writ of mandate (2) directing city officials “to enforce Family Code (3) provisions, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but expressed no opinion on the constitutional validity of such provisions.” The city, couples of same-sex marriage, and groups in support of same sex marriage validity then filed actions seeking declaratory judgment challenging Family Code provisions on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. The Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco ruled that the Family Code provisions did violate the equal protection of citizens under the state constitution. When this happened, the state and same-sex marriage challengers took this decision to The Court of Appeals. “The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the constitutionality of the Family Code provisions.” Superseding the decisions of the Court of Appeals, the case was allowed to be decided in The Supreme Court. One of the statutes held within In re Marriage was California’s statute 308.5 of 2000, whereby recognition of the regulation stated validity of marriage was only recognized if the union was between a man and a woman. As previously stated this statute within the Family Code provisions cannot be valid because it violates the constitutional right of the citizens, violating the equal protection clause and thus the Family Code provisions could not stand. According to this statute, “because differential treatment accorded opposite-sex and same-sex couples by state statutes defining and limiting marriage impinged upon same-sex couples' and individuals' fundamental privacy interest in having their official family relationships accorded equal respect and dignity, strict scrutiny analysis applied to same-sex couples' equal protection challenge to Family Code provisions limiting marriage to union between a man and a woman. Over six appeals of In re Marriage Cases (2008) 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384 to the Supreme Court on the behalf of opponents of same-sex marriage were denied rehearing on subsequent appeal 2009 WL 2515727.” Basic civil rights of marriage to all individuals and couples are guaranteed privacy and due process provisions by the state of California. Without regard to a person’s sexual orientation, the basic nature of the authentic rights personifies the right to marry, and importance to all citizens having the opportunity to “live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.” The state Constitution must properly be interpreted to guarantee these basic civil rights to all individuals and couples. This should be done without “regard to their sexual orientation, and to accord same-sex couples the right to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships, despite traditional restriction of marriage to union between a man and a woman.” Rehearing in light of this information denied for In re Marriage Cases. Along with the right to marry appeals, construction with other laws and legal rights such as domestic partnership - which do not receive the same rights, marital status, benefits, or recognition by other states - were brought up in In re Marriage, in support of same-sex marriage and the rights that should be granted to these couples, just as the rights are granted to hetero-sexual couples and partnerships. The regulation (which was created by government agencies) of Sec 7.5 “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” construction and applications following In re Marriage included: *Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2010, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657.Federal Courts 446 *Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2010, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657.Federal Civil Procedure 25 *Perry v. Schwarzenegger, C.A.9 (Cal.)2011, 630 F.3d 898.Declaratory Judgment 306 *Perry v. Schwarzenegger, C.A.9 (Cal.)2011, 630 F.3d 898.Declaratory Judgment 306 Also included within the statute: *Discretion of court - Perry v. Brown, C.A.9 (Cal.)2012, 2012 WL 372713. *Jurisdiction - Perry v. Schwarzenegger, C.A.9 (Cal.)2010, 602 F.3d 976.Federal Courts 527 *Presumptions and burden of proof''' - Perry v. Schwarzenegger, C.A.9 (Cal.)2011, 630 F.3d 898.Declaratory Judgment 306 '''Ruling and decisions of' The Supreme Court, George, C.J., stated that: 1. Opponents of same sex marriage lacked standing to pursue claims for declaratory relief; but 2. they preserved ability to present their views through amicus curiae status; 3. Privacy and due process provisions of state Constitution guarantee basic civil right of marriage to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation; 4. For purposes of determining applicable standard of review under state Constitutional equal protection analysis, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not encompassed within constitutional prohibition against discrimination based on sex; but 5. as issue of first impression, sexual orientation is a suspect classification for purposes of state equal protection clause, and thus statutes that treat persons differently based on their sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny analysis; 6. Differential treatment accorded opposite-sex and same-sex couples by state statutes impinges upon same-sex couples' fundamental privacy interest in having official family relationship accorded equal respect and dignity, and thus strict scrutiny analysis applies on this basis as well; 7. Family Code provisions limiting designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples are not necessary to serve compelling state interest, and thus those provisions violate state equal protection clause; 8. Language in Family Code provision limiting marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional, and must be stricken from the statute; and 9. Family Code provision stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” is unconstitutional, and cannot stand. ___________________________________________________________ FOOTNOTES: 1. A writ petition is essentially a court petition for extraordinary review, asking a court to intervene in a lower court’s decision. 2. A court order to a government agency, including another court, to follow the law by correcting its prior actions or ceasing illegal acts. 3. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.